About your Search

20121006
20121014
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 114 (some duplicates have been removed)
, one that we're very proud of is the midmarket payroll tax initiatives. that is to make san francisco much more attracttive to entrepreneurial companies and renovate a blighted area. we're particularly proud of this kind of public-private partnership to move the city forward. now join me in welcoming the city's first asian american mayor and i'm very proud to say a member of the lee tribe, the 43rd mayor of san francisco, ed lee. (applause). >> thank you, judy, very much for that introduction. good morning, everyone. >> good morning. >> it's great to be here at the san francisco chamber and of course the center for economic development here, your breakfast for 2012, it's my pleasure to be here. i walked in as ed from wells fargo was talking and i just wanted to make sure you knew, i am eternally grateful it the chamber, to wells fargo for helping me create 5,200 jobs for our kids. that's a wonderful accomplishment. i've been your mayor for almost two years now and everybody is coming up to me and asking, are you enjoying it? you know, some of the politics in the city it's hard to
city's living wage law, sick leave, health care and all the compendium or payroll tax, all of the variety of cost of doing business and this is why i think i understand from what you're saying, that would be harder to prosecute, i completely understand that. we may decide that's a problem, but i think that's what i hear you saying, you're not necessarily saying if the surcharge was on health care and that money was not used for health care, that that would be -- to me, that's much more clear cut situation. >> that's exactly what i'm saying but i do want to say it's not theoretical, without going into the open investigation that we have, i will say that it was obvious to me as i think it was to the grand jury that they're moving to a broader surcharge language, at least a number of them are and that trend may continue, so that the ability to track exactly what they're taking in and what they're paying out and whether or not they're making any type of misrepresentation to their customers is more difficult. >> thank you, logs, any -- colleague, any additional questions. er >>
and the board of supervisors. we've all come together to tax reform, on housing, on fixing our parks and open space. we've got this year coming together in unprecedented way to put these issues on the ballot before the voters and make sure it's the right time for all of us to be smart, to make long-term investments in housing and in parks and it is time to do tax reform. together we're putting people back to work, building our city at the same time and now the tax structure has to be addressed. a lot of people keep asking me, what is this tax reform? it's kind of complicated. and i tell them it's about real people, real businesses and real jobs. because it is now that we're the only city in the state of california that's got a payroll tax. we're still taxing job creation, opposite of what we've all wanted to do many if not most of you have complained for years, why are we doing this to ourselves? well, i'm happy to report that we're long last at reforming our business tax structure. we're going to stop taxing jobs and we're going to help companies large and small start here, stay here and
, wind down pay off the debt so the tax increment in the series is available for distribution to the taxing entities, city, county, bart, schools. free up the taxes generated for distribution to the other entities. in the case of san francisco we do have a lot at stake. a number of these area plans which the commission approved the board approved as i indicated, made or approved, hunters point, mission bay, trans bay, another obligations that need to be implemented, they are in many cases 30 year plants. mission bay, hald done. trans way, just getting started, going for the terminal, housing production, infrastructure needed along folsom, is getting started, 700 acres still left to be done over the course of 20-30 years. what 1483 did, because it is a separate legal entity, apart from the city and county of san francisco, acknowledged that the surviving obligations and successor agencies in fact are not part of the city and county of san francisco is adopted on february 1. on june 27, when the governor signed that bill into law, so-called clean-up, we had to revisit the
of infrastructure districts which is in a form of tax increment financing, in the wake of redevelopment agencies, more focus came to this tool, this year and two major bills are on the governor's desk at this point. ab2144 which is the speakers bill, generally provides a broader use of infrastructure financing districts. one thing the two bills and i will discuss the second bill in a second, have in common, and this was a fatal flaw i think in earlier versions of infrastructure financing district bills. it would have allowed entities to scoop up tax increments out of school districts share of local and both of these bills have prohibitions against that. the reason is the state is compelled to backfill any of those kind of redirections. so these bills have a higher degree of promise of being approved. the speakers bill is a broader-based bill it is more akin to a redevelopment agency structure and the one unique feature of this bill different from the second bill i mentioned as second, is that it still requires a vote to establish the infrastructure district. 55 percent vote of the populous and t
to actually have them in treatment rather than costing the tax payers thousands of dollars. so we have to save the seniors the services that they need and we have to be willing to make hard reform. >> now we come to the candidate' closing statements if you are not registered to vote, please do so right away and urge your friends and family to register stao. the deadline is october 22nd. if you have moved you need to register again with the new address, if you have changed your name you need to register again with the new name. all right. so we will do the closing statements in reverse, alphabetical order and please remember that you have tr two minutes >> thank you for organizing our decision and thank you for showing up. >> i am running because we don't need people in sacramento to talk about fixing our problems we need people who know how to fix it. i took over a broke assess or's office and reformed it and made it more efficient and because of that we were able to bring in $3 million of additional revenue without raising taxes people talk about clean jobs but we did something here in san f
. on the ballot as well is a business tax restructure to bring in new revenue for the city and many millions of dollars from that, about 13 will be dedicated to the affordable housing so we can ramp up development of affordable housing in san francisco. >> thank you. mr. everett? >> providing affordable housing is a central and extremely important issue. that being said, we also need to look at how we deal with public housing within the city and county of san francisco. i grew up in section 8 housing. i know what that is like. i grew up on food stamps, i know what that is like. we need to understand how we can end some of the cycles that we talk about on a day to day basis and the root causes of those cycles. the way to address those is to directly target the housing crisis in san francisco and directly target hud housing. we do that by providing vouchers to folks. with the vouchers you could take a family and moved them into mixed income units. i am a product of that. i am a product of a young person being able to wake up in the morning and see to my left a doctor and see to my right a pr
a is a temporary 8-year, $79 parcel tax on properties in san francisco. and that money would go directly to supporting city college of san francisco. city college is the largest work force training center in san francisco. we train students. we also help students learn english as a second language and then of course one of our primary missions is to help students, particularly low income and underserved students, move on to 4 year institutions. we serve nearly 100,000 students in san francisco and are a tremendous resource, we think, for san francisco. the last couple years the state budget cuts we faced, $53 million in the last 3 years alone, have really made it a challenge for us to keep our doors open for san francisco students and this proposition a would make a tremendous difference in addressing our fiscal problems right now. >> understood. thank you. starchild, can you present some of the thoughts around the opposition? >> sure. we all believe in people getting an education and having those opportunities be affordable and accessible to them, but city college's financial probl
, of course, from the tax base and it's all connected and --. >> that's right. >> the tax is $79 per household. can you talk about that and how that would be an impact in your view? it's an 8-year tax. it's a finite tax. >> well, you know they say the only things permanent are death and taxes. once a new tax is implemented we often find even though it's called temporary when it gets passed, it ends up bking permanent or longer term than was discussed. i would love for my colleague here to tell us that she won't support extending that tax beyond the 8 years if it were to pass, but i believe that there's other ways that city college can stay afloat and continue to serve a declining student population. they might close some of the new campuses they've opened recently and consolidate facilities. >> thank you. do you want to offer comments to starchild's opposition? >> i think the, one of the primary things we need to remember is that city college of san francisco, which is an institution that san francisco really counts on, i think, for both our economy and for all of the community, has been
through the special tax assessment against the specific parcel over a 20-year term. the port must opt into the special tax district, however the special taxes are secured by the tenant's leasehold interest. >> port in return would pay its prorated share of the special taxes which is approximately 35 percent, and that was derived by the amount of space that the port occupies as compared to the project over all. which are estimated to be approximately $100,000 annually. >> the sublease agreement, between the port and prologis provides for the reimbursement of the taxes leveed against the tenants especially to reduce the operating expenses. >> the project sponsor through the controls and the project sponsor is over here aaron blinkly and cordova is the director and johnson is represent as well. they have prepared extensive models on the energy safe ands their estimates through the sustain able improvements will be approximately $100,000 annually. so that equates to the cost of the special tax assessment. and so that is in the first year. the projections, however, take into account energy
francisco, as they have done in numerous occasions, voted in a tax, an adadd vel orm tax, a property tx for the purpose of maintaining a symphony orchestra. that tax now generates $2 million annually. we think that that's wise. look at what happened to the san francisco symphony. it's world-reimpound. renowned. it has done everything that it was intended to be. however we uncovered a contract between the san francisco arts commission and the san francisco symphony, which is a four year contract starting in 2010, running through 2014, in which the san francisco arts commission gives the san francisco symphony $2 million. the san francisco symphony, however, gives back to the arts commission, 40% of that, or $800,000. there are no restrictions on the use of that money, and there is no requirement or actual experience in the last number of years, for the san francisco arts commission to use that money to maintain a symphony orchestra. a clear violation of the intent of the charter. the $2 million tax and the giveback are in the same piece of paper. so one cannot say that they were not mean
and dedicate a million dollars over two years of the grants for the arts hotel taxed on a one time basis to fund the inventory maintenance storage et cetera of existing art location located in the city and airport and other city properties. i'm going to say this will require further analysis during the annual budget process. so that's going to take a longer timeframe but that's something we're going to have to look at in next year's budget. and the same would be said for recommendation no. 11, regarding designating hotel tax for -- so forth. i suggest that also would require further analysis based upon next year's budget. and apologies, also for recommendation no. 12. that is designating hotel tax funds 1% of the value of the collection on an annual basis. i think that's something everyone would agree to but again we are in a restrictive capital and budget environment and it is competing priority with everything else and i think it is incumbent to look at everything at a wholesale kind of wholesome way during the budget process and we will do that. >> on this one, this will not be implem
are looking at approximately 5 to 7 companies that are applying for the payroll tax exclusion this year, twitter being a big one. [speaker not understood] lane, zoosk, and i can't remember any of the others off the top of my head. but i know that the cac members have been engaging with executives at twitter at 1 king's lane. i'm p sure they are with the process of the negotiating with the city's administrator. they have increased meetings from once a month to twice a month to accommodate, you know -- we expect a flurry of companies that are going to be applying. and the cbas have to be signed by january 31st. so, it's going to be kind of a busy time of year. but as far as i know, you know, i don't have the latest up to date information, but i don't think any other companies have officially applied for the payroll tax exclusion. i might be wrong on that, but we are looking at about 5 to 7 that will apply. that's basically all i had. do you have any questions? >> no further questions. it would be great to get the lists of the companies that you think would be applying this year. i also un
be used for costs for alcohol consumption. in this year's election the city of richmond will vote on a tax for penny on sugary beverages.eqc to encourage healthier behavior and recover the cost of providing medical services to people who become sick from alcoholic abuse or unhealthy diets? >> no. >> london breed, no. [ laughter ] >> you are up first, right? >> miss johnson? >> i agree with london breed, no. i will say that the health care costs associated with alcohol and sugary drinks is what is the problem and we need to address the health care and insurance issues. i happen to be new york when mayor bloomberg announced he was going to restrict the amount of sugary drinks people can buy. people were very upset by that. i wonder how upset they would be if they knew they were collecting money because in new york they are not actually collecting money. because a lot of people who have these problems don't have a lot of money and the a lot of people that don't have a lot of money live in areas where they don't have access to healthy food and that is a lot more of a problem. now you are
and execute annexation of pier one and san francisco special count tax district and san francisco sustainable financing and payment for the port commission of the pro rata share of special taxes, a sub tenant with the pier and llc. >> motion to approve. >> motion. >> second. >> is there any public comment? hearing none all in favor. >> aye. >> aye. >> resolutions 1275 and 1276 have passed. >> item 9a informational presentation on the port planning studies associated with approval of the pier 27 james r. herman cruise terminal and each wharf terminal project. >> good afternoon president woo ho, members of the commission. i am diane oshima with port and planning division and i wanted to give informational overview of planning studies that the port and p dc will commences towards the end of this year. i saw joe step in and i want to acknowledge him as well. the port and they have a long history of working together, and commissioner adams you weren't here before, but let me just give you a brief background. as part of the pier 27 james r. herman cruise terminal project. it went through the pro
. there are no increases to the highway... to the federal gas tax. >> it maintains existing structure. and it also maintains it beyond of life of safety-lu. so there is senator and we will not have to face a renewal of the gas tax on the expiration of map 21. >> as far as the implementation of safety-lu in the state of california. we are looking to see about the same level of funding over all as a state. of approximately $3 and a half billion under the two programs. but, the key issue is that the funding programs are distributed. the funding is distributed differently, and there is a tug of war going on right now as we speak between the state and the regions about how that funding will be distributed. so, and i will get to that in a moment. but the issue will be discussed in detail at the ctc meeting on september 26 and 27th in burning game. over all the proposal maintains the current level. -safetea-lu-calls for a 50/50 split for the funding sources which in the past had been funded two-thirds to the region and one-third to the state and this is primarily the surface transportation program which
is you implicate the public character of your office. if you're the tax collector, and you misrepresent your income on your income taxes, that's not purely private misconduct. that is a matter of public concern because it shows the public that it has a fox in the henhouse, essentially. that's very different, if, for example, you're an animal control officer and you misrepresent your income on your taxes. and think of it in reverse. what if you're an animal control officer. is there a relationship to the duties of your position if you're running a dog fight ring? in your private time? of course there is. no one wants michael vic in control of the animal control department. at the same time, if michael vic -- i'm sorry, at the same time if that person isn't fairly disclosing all of their income on income taxes, that may not have an official dimension. that may be purely private misconduct because there is no apparent overlap between the misconduct and the duties. chairperson hur explained i think quite eloquently his concern that the relationship test needs to be a bright line test. and t
it notified in a public circulation and thanks like that. you can't put it on the property tax rule. they do that because they understand the department's need, certain powers, there has to be balance and equity among certain groups. i guess the water department is able to put this on the property tax role too. without getting into details because i know my time is limited. there's a lot of things i'm uncovering. this just seemed quite unfair. it tilts the balance of fairness away from the property owners who are semi-innocent in this situation. >> your point is clear and we will take a look at that and get a report back. >> should i have -- i have the stuff you sent. would there be any help in me submitting this or no? >> yes, if you could give that to todd. >> okay. all right. thank you very much, appreciate your time. >> is there an appeal process for these kinds of issues? >> we do have todd, the assistant general services c.f.o. this is a commercial account as i recall it. so it goes through the standard procedure, and we are on a bimonthly billing cycle. we have a delinquency notice
it would be different for example for the tax collector and the sheriff. >> supervisor kim: let's keep the the tax collector out. if we are going to say that there're standards, which i'm not sure i agree with but if we agree it's standards relating to your specific office, specifically the sheriff's office, how do i delineate when it falls below the standards of decency? so what can guide us in the future when it's not a domestic violence? what can guide us in understanding when it falls below the standard of decency? that's what i'm trying to grapple with. >> i see. i think it is a discretionary decision. i think you can look to the case law, you can look to the norms of the city, the morass of the city. i think that it is, at bottom, a judgment call. there have been times, 50 years ago, when a sheriff committing a little arm grab truly would have been no big deal, right? the severity, the understood severity of that conduct has changed over time. and it may change again. i don't know. but there is no hard and fast, where you can look it up -- >> supervisor kim: and i appreciate your
with frankly very little room to place them. other alternatives include the treasure tax collector, includes the assessor recorder's office, you recently approved a short term lease for a project for their use that could have some expansion down stream, they would need space potentially for that or potentially at city hall. we mentioned the law library as an unresolved space matter, i don't want to get into the logistics of that today but note that as a potential, but we think the most viable potential use is related to the fact that the building is half a block away from the fspuc headquarters, we have not been able to move everything into that fspuc and we'll be executing a hold-over for upwards of 13 thousand square feet to meet some of the waste water and consultant space needs that puc has, so clearly there is a demand for public space, the pricing of this agreement subject to this ratification item is similar to the cost of city owned buildings, so it is far below the market rate which currently according to the most recent report we have from cbre is running at about 30 dollars and 9
the buildings will bring is historic tax credit and equity and low expense equity to the project and we have designed a participation rent structure where the port's income is behind some of the other equity and other investors so that we can bring more of the money to the table and because of those reasons we can do the project now and not wait to invest substantial public money into it as we once thought. overview of the business trends. odi in the term sheet has agreed to invest $14 million of their equity in the project. the port is putting 1.5 million and that is money we budgeted and planned and we were going to spend money to prop up the buildings because we didn't think we could get to it in time. we put those on hold and we are going to contribute to the full rehab. the participation deal works that the net revenue after paying the debt service and the costs will first flow back to the odi entity to repay the equity that invested and 14% return on that equity. once their equity is repaid we share in the net and the port also has participation in the refinancing and sales procee
issue. when with you were debating the twitter payroll tax break, there was a lot of discussion about that. and there are obviously some good things that came out of that. it's generating new jobs in the city, but you heard the downside that creates more pressure, especially the south of market and tenderloin markets in rents. also noted at the time puts pressure in two ways, one student housing and the other hotelization. thank you to supervisor [wao*-eufrpb/]'s leadership and your support. we did deal with the student housing problem a few weeks ago and today you have an opportunity to vote to end hotelization problem that has been bothering the city since the law passed in 1981. i think some of you already have this, but it's a bay citizen article and what is interesting about it is how it speaks to the economics of this. what it talks about is a woman, i don't give her name, but she goes to the landlord with a business proposition, i will give up a rental if you rent it and gave me 10% and the landlord says and at $225 a night when was a $2100 a month apartment is now $6700 a mon
order, na's fine, we have the department of public health, the district attorney, the treasurer tax collector, the city attorney, the mayor, and then after the city departments, we do have someone from the board of equalize sashes that will address us around the tax issue and is the golden gate association which voluntarily responded to the civil grand jury. so, we'll start with olsc. and olsc is office labor standards enforcement. >> good afternoon, members of the committee, i appreciate your time and the opportunity to be here. i'm going to try to do a couple of things in quick succession, i will recap our responses to the civil grand jury report and then i was going take a moment to summarize the report that we issued in august on the 2011 data that was submitted to us, much of that has been discussed already so i'll try to get through that quickly and high lying a few things that haven't been addressed so far. with that, we were asked to respond to just six of the 13 findings from the civil grand jury so i'm going walk through those, the first finding indicated that the jury cou
misconduct because you as a body promulgate the laws here. if you file your tax returns late, if you default on a loan, and some of the members of the board have already posed this question, we're certainly happy to engage in answering any questions you may have, but the problem with the mayor's position is that it is not a workable standard. and it doesn't have any support in the law. that's why, when they tell you that our position, that you have to be in office in order to commit official misconduct is unsupported, they have to go to other jurisdictions to try to get some case law to support their position. and we submit to you that you don't have to look any further than the the case law here in california, and it's right there on page 150 of the mazzola decision, wherein the court of appeals said there has to be a violation or omission of a proscribed act committed while in office. if you're not in office, you there's nothing to measure the conduct against. and so for those reasons, we urge that you vote to reinstate the sheriff. thank you. >> president chiu: thank you, mr. kopp. i know
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 114 (some duplicates have been removed)